“Why do you think the very idea or suggestion of intelligent design is so antagonistic to scientists who claim they have evidence? Why not have the debate? If they are so confident, why not have debate?”
To interject, the reason is that ID makes no scientific claims worth debating. It advances a hypothesis as to life’s origin, without shedding additional light on any scientifically testable phenomenon. That’s not science.
Ben Stein is a great (and intelligent) guy, but he’s clearly not that scientifically literate. His religion is also clearly interfering with his views on this subject. He doesn’t seem to realize that ID might just as easily be done by giant pink rabbits from Aldeberan VII, or the Flying Sphaghetti Monster. Nor does he apparently realize that the ‘random’ nature of evolution might also be viewed as a very subtle guiding hand from above.
One facet of things the IDers seem to frequently ignore is that DNA looks anything but ‘designed’, from an engineering standpoint.
Finally, on the subject of dogma and repression of free thought - religion has a much worse track record than science. I assure each and every one of you that if you come up with a theory that addresses most of what evolution does, and provides experimental/observational tests that validate your theory at the expense of evolution, scientists will rally to your cause.
Your new explanation will almost certainly have to conform to modern cosmology and geology timescales and the fossil record though, as those are well confirmed at this point.
Ha, ha, ha. So have you reverse-engineered the complex, non-linear structure of the blueprint of life? Please share how this was accomplished, and how it disproves design. I hope you realize that your statement contradicts the biggest argument made against ID - namely that it is supposedly untestable and therefore unscientific. But you just proposed a test which you claim it failed. Amazing what you accomplished all in one little sentence!
Anti ID folk often do this. They claim ID is not science because it cannot be tested. Then they contradict themselves by saying how evidence refutes ID. You can't have it both ways.